The Congressional Budget Office is out with its latest report on the Affordable Care Act, and here are a few bottom lines:
— The ACA is cheaper than it expected.
— It will "markedly increase" the number of Americans with health insurance.
— The risk-adjustment provisions, which Congressional Republicans want to overturn as a "bailout" of the insurance industry, will actually turn a profit to the U.S. Treasury.

Given all this, why are the first news headlines on the CBO report depicting it as calling Obamacare a job killer?

You can chalk up some of that to the crudity of headline-writing, and some to basic innumeracy in the press. But it's important to examine what the CBO actually says about the ACA's impact on the labor market. (You can find it at pages 117-127, excerpted here.)

The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.

As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus."

The ACA will reduce the total hours worked by about 1.5% to 2% in 2017 to 2024, the CBO forecasts, "almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive." That translates into about 2.5 million full-time equivalents by 2024 — not the number of workers, because some will reduce their number of hours worked rather than leaving the workforce entirely.

The overall impact on the community will be muted, moreover, because most of that effect will be seen at the lowest levels of the wage-earning scale. The effect will be "small or negligible for most categories of workers," the CBO says, because there will be almost no impact on workers who get their insurance from their employers or who earn more than 400% of the federal poverty line (for a family of three, that's $78,120), the point at which eligibility for federal premium disappears.

As for labor demand, the CBO estimates that on balance, the ACA will increase aggregate demand for goods and services, in part by relieving lower-income people of the burden of health insurance or healthcare expenses, so they can increase their spending on other things. In turn, that will "boost demand for labor," especially in the near term, while the economy remains slack.

The rest of the CBO's economic and budgetary analysis has only modest changes from previous projections. It reduced its estimate of the net costs of the ACA by a vanishingly small $9 billion over 10 years compared to its previous estimate, issued in May. In part this is because many states failed to expand Medicaid, which would be almost entirely paid for by the federal government, and also because premiums are lower than it previously projected. Also, the problems of the healthcare.gov website reduced enrollments, cutting the government's bill for premium subsidies. Overall, the CBO reaffirmed its conclusion that that "the total effect of the ACA would be to reduce federal deficits."

The CBO report cuts the legs out from the GOP's attack on "risk corridors," a provision of the ACA that balances costs and expenses for insurance companies participating in the act by paying insurers whose coverage expenses exceed expectations by a certain margin in the first few years of the act, and collecting excess revenues from those whose expenses come in unexpectedly lower.

We've previously identified this GOP position as the most cynical attack on the ACA of all — the Republicans choose to call it a "bailout" of insurers; actually, it's a way of keeping premiums for some plans from getting out of hand, until the industry has more experience dealing with its new clientele. Unsurprisingly, the GOP is doubling down on this dishonesty by talking about eliminating the risk corridors as a condition for raising the federal debt limit.
The CBO, in any case, says that in 2015-2024, the government will pay out $8 billion in risk subsidies to the insurers but collect $16 billion. Real-world math says this is a gain to the Treasury of $8 billion; GOP math says it's a "bailout." You be the judge.

Regarding its most important bottom-line finding, the CBO says enrollment in individual insurance exchanges may reach only 6 million this year, down from its previous estimate of 7 million, thanks to the problems with the federal enrollment website, healthcare.gov. But it says enrollment will likely surge as the April 1 deadline for signing up approaches, and the 7-million goal is still attainable.

The ACA will increase the number of Americans with health insurance by 13 million this year, 20 million next year, and 25 million each year from then through 2024. Some 80% of those enrollees will be receiving federal subsidies to keep their coverage affordable.
There will be fewer uninsured people living in the United States, and most of those with individual coverage will be getting help to pay for it. Is there another other conclusion to draw from those statistics than the Affordable Care Act is working?

What I'm saying is you are lying by omission by leaving out large parts of what else the CBO says. Not period.

Ignore this all you want, but its right there:L
"The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease;"

How can the number of hours be reduced and jobs be created?

Damn, you continue your stupidity even in the face of multiple explanations.

Do you understand that the CBO report is saying that after accounting for all decreases and increases (over that time period) the FINAL RESULT will be fewer hours worked? You don't get to pick one aspect and say it changes the conclusion unless you want to say that you DISAGREE with the report itself. ALL of this has been accounted for and the FINAL result is fewer hours worked (over previous projections, given time period, etc etc)

I believe the "extra money" is coming from the previously unemployed who get the jobs of the people that voluntarily left.

There are a large number of people who are ready to retire but need health insurance which would be very expensive at their age, particularly with pre-existing conditions a lot people have as they get older. These are generally people with a few years to go until Medicare kicks in. They need to continue insurance until then, so they keep working.

I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Even Paul Ryan gets it.

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock

Until you figure out that the total hours worked is in the supply of labor, not the supply of jobs, I'm going to continue to laugh at you.

I have not once commented on what side of the equation is the cause. Please point out where I said ONCE WHY there will be fewer hours worked. I am simply stating what the CBO report gives as a final conclusion as to the actual number of hours worked, regardless of why.

Face it, you stated that the CBO report does NOT state that fewer hours will be worked. That is DEAD WRONG. You can backtrack and try to say it's ok or whatever now but that is NOT what the report clearly states.

You are simply too stupid to understand this simple concept ... it's pretty clear to all of us.

Damn, you continue your stupidity even in the face of multiple explanations.

Do you understand that the CBO report is saying that after accounting for all decreases and increases (over that time period) the FINAL RESULT will be fewer hours worked? You don't get to pick one aspect and say it changes the conclusion unless you want to say that you DISAGREE with the report itself. ALL of this has been accounted for and the FINAL result is fewer hours worked (over previous projections, given time period, etc etc)

I weep for our education system.

Still not understand the difference between labor supply and job supply, eh?

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock

I believe the "extra money" is coming from the previously unemployed who get the jobs of the people that voluntarily left.

There are a large number of people who are ready to retire but need health insurance which would be very expensive at their age, particularly with pre-existing conditions a lot people have as they get older. These are generally people with a few years to go until Medicare kicks in. They need to continue insurance until then, so they keep working.

Cosmo. Will you admit ONE THING. The CBO report states that fewer hours will be worked? Not asking you to say that's a bad thing... but will you at least admit to what the report ACTUALLY says.

I have not once commented on what side of the equation is the cause. Please point out where I said ONCE WHY there will be fewer hours worked. I am simply stating what the CBO report gives as a final conclusion as to the actual number of hours worked, regardless of why.

Well, because of this:

"As for labor demand, the CBO estimates that on balance,(everything included, like you falsely claim.) the ACA will increase aggregate demand for goods and services, in part by relieving lower-income people of the burden of health insurance or healthcare expenses, so they can increase their spending on other things. In turn, that will "boost demand for labor," especially in the near term, while the economy remains slack. "

How can there be a boost to demand for labor, and less hours worked?

Because the CBO says that about 2 percent of total hours will choose not to work.

The CBO goes on to say, that since that is on the supple of labor side of the equation, "In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease" (CBO Quote)

Equivalent of 2 percent of total hours on the labor side will choose not work, is not the same as "fewer hours" worked, nor is it what the CBO said on the final job supply figure.

Stop thinking labor supply translates into job supply numbers. AKA learn the difference and what the report is saying.

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock

Still not understand the difference between labor supply and job supply, eh?

Why don't you actually answer my question asshole? Is it because you now realize that the multiple posts where you ASSERT that the CBo report does NOT say that hours worked will be reduced where wrong?

Yes, the CBO report states that it will be mostly due to a contraction in labor SUPPLY. I have never once argued that point. If you could read above a 3rd grade level you might understand that.

Do you continue to state that the CBO report doesn't say that after accounting for all of this... the NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED WILL BE REDUCED?

Cosmo. Will you admit ONE THING. The CBO report states that fewer hours will be worked? Not asking you to say that's a bad thing... but will you at least admit to what the report ACTUALLY says.

(just want to see if you are Loneiguana stupid on this)

"The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily."

Why don't you actually answer my question asshole? Is it because you now realize that the multiple posts where you ASSERT that the CBo report does NOT say that hours worked will be reduced where wrong?

Yes, the CBO report states that it will be mostly due to a contraction in labor SUPPLY. I have never once argued that point. If you could read above a 3rd grade level you might understand that.

Do you continue to state that the CBO report doesn't say that after accounting for all of this... the NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED WILL BE REDUCED?

Because it doesn't.

But keep leaving out large chunks of context for false narrative.

__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock

"As for labor demand, the CBO estimates that on balance,(everything included, like you falsely claim.) the ACA will increase aggregate demand for goods and services, in part by relieving lower-income people of the burden of health insurance or healthcare expenses, so they can increase their spending on other things. In turn, that will "boost demand for labor," especially in the near term, while the economy remains slack. "

How can there be a boost to demand for labor, and less hours worked?

Because the CBO says that about 2 percent of total hours will choose not to work.

The CBO goes on to say, that since that is on the supple of labor side of the equation, "In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease" (CBO Quote)

Equivalent of 2 percent of total hours on the labor side will choose not work, is not the same as "fewer hours" worked, nor is it what the CBO said on the final job supply figure.

Stop thinking labor supply translates into job supply numbers. AKA learn the difference and what the report is saying.

And you've gone full retard.

Btw if you are going to quote the CBO, ACTUALLY quote it. You are quoting commentary about the report jackass.

Yes the CBO states that the reduction in hours will be due to LABOR SUPPLY drying up. No one here is arguing this fact. That is what the CBO states. It also states that there will be fewer hours worked REGARDLESS of any increase in demand for labor.

Let me dumb it down even more.

Let's say there is an increase in 1000 ditch digging jobs available but there are only 1000 unemployed people and they are all lawyers. How many of those lawyers will work more hours because of the increase in job supply?

The CBO is stating that fewer people will choose to work due to ACA and you will see a FINAL NET DECREASE in hours worked. Period.

You're clueless if you can;t see that.

You can argue that it's a GOOD THING if you want. Fine. But you were DEAD WRONG when you stated that it wasn't what the report said. Are you too terminally stupid to even admit this?

You have yet to provide one piece of "context" that backs up your claim that the CBO report DOES NOT state that fewer hours will be worked (yes, due to labor choosing not to work not due to job supply being reduced no one is arguing this non sequitur that you keep harping on).

"As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus.""

People who are retired who needed to work for the insurance can not stay retired, like they want?

Or families where the spouse only worked for a healthcare plan can now stay home and raise kids?

Allowing them not to be forced into working is a bad thing, right patty?

I'm not the person who is failing to take note of both sides of this coin. You're pointing exclusively to the cases where Obamacare benefits people and I've agreed that those cases exist. But you're ignoring the people who otherwise would want to work but will find it more economically beneficial to go part time or not work at all in order to qualify for the subsidies. For this class of people, Obamacare is essentially paying them not to work.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton